Legal Opinion

O'Connor Oil Corp. v. Warber

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided May 10, 1966PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBeilfuss, J.

The issues are: (1) Was parol evidence admissible to vary or explain the terms of the written note, and (2) are the findings of the trial court against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence.

The first issue must be resolved against the plaintiff-appellant, O’Connor.

The obligation of Warber was to pay the $1,200 “on demand when sales agreements are terminated.” The written terms of the note, without explanation, do not identify the agreement or agreements, whether they were written or oral, nor their conditions of breach or dates of termination.

The parol-evidence rule…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Conrad Milwaukee Corp. v. WasilewskiWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  2. Morn v. SchalkWisconsin Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Bank of Sheboygan v. FesslerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1935
  4. Kietlinski v. Interstate Transport Lines, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1958
  5. Wallace v. MantheiWisconsin Supreme Court · 1955

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Jolin v. OsterWisconsin Supreme Court · 1972
  2. Stevens Construction Corp. v. Carolina Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1974
  3. Seventeen Seventy-Six Peachtree Corp. v. MillerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1969
  4. Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Milwaukee Gear Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1974
  5. American Casualty Co. v. M. S. L. Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1969

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API